I doubt that would be possible to track something so esoteric without playtesting it to see. For one thing, you can't dictate the heroes, classes or open group monsters that will be used. (Well, you can, I suppose, but in general it isn't done.) That means two things:
1) you don't have all the information when trying to determine which side is "more powerful"
2) future expansions may introduce new options that can be retroactively included, so even if you assume the optimal choices are made for all variables, there may be other, "more optimal" options that get invented in the future.
3) assuming optimal choices would be bad form anyway, because that means players would have to make the optimal choices every time or risk an imbalanced experience.
Three. Three things!
Also, a large portion of a quest's balance hangs on the special quest rules. You can write literally anything you want for your special quest rules; how powerful they are for one side or the other would require a program that could first parse the language to determine the meaning (with allowances for people who don't spell properly or perhaps are not native English speakers), then evaluate the possible consequences in play and somehow rank the results in an objective, indisputable fashion.
There are entire fields of study devoted to this sort of thing in computer science.
Finally, there's the fact that even human beings only rarely agree on what "balanced" actually means. Some people will say a quest is OP while others think it's fine. Balance is a highly subjective thing, and computers don't generally do so well with subjective.
Edited by Steve-O, 15 April 2014 - 06:48 PM.